Judge to Hear Challenge to Mississippi Law Banning Most Abortions

A judge is holding a hearing Tuesday to consider a lawsuit filed by Mississippi’s last standing abortion clinic that was at the center of the Supreme Court case that resulted in the overturn of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The lawsuit the judge will consider pertains to a Mississippi law scheduled to take effect that would ban most abortions in the state. Townhall covered last week how the clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, will close if the law takes effect.

ABC News noted that the clinic is seeking a temporary restraining order on the law, which is scheduled to take effect July 7.

The Jackson Women's Health Organization sought a temporary restraining order that would allow it to remain open, at least while the lawsuit remains in court.
The closely watched lawsuit is part of a flurry of activity that has occurred nationwide since the Supreme Court ruled. Conservative states have moved to halt or limit abortions while others have sought to ensure abortion rights, all as some women try to obtain the medical procedure against the changing legal landscape.
If Chancery Judge Debbra K. Halford grants the clinic’s request to block the new Mississippi law from taking effect, the decision could be quickly appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The new Mississippi law says abortion will be legal only if the pregnant woman’s life is in danger or if a pregnancy is caused by a rape reported to law enforcement. It does not have an exception for pregnancies caused by incest.
Mississippi was one of several states with a “trigger” law contingent on the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. The law was passed in 2007 and has never been challenged in court.

Last summer, Fitch filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe and Casey. In her brief, Fitch outlined how the United States Constitution does not protect the right to abortion. The case surrounded a 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi.

“Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition,” Fitch said in the brief. “So the question becomes whether this Court should overrule those decisions. It should.”

“The Constitution does not protect a right to abortion. The Constitution’s text says nothing about abortion. Nothing in the Constitution’s structure implies a right to abortion or prohibits States from restricting it,” Fitch continued in the brief. “Casey repeats Roe’s flaws by failing to tie a right to abortion to anything in the Constitution. And abortion is fundamentally different from any right this Court has ever endorsed. No other right involves, as abortion does, ‘the purposeful termination of a potential life.’”

In the majority opinion for Dobbs, the justices echoed Fitch’s arguments.

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” the opinion stated.

“Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided. Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.”